...the security of a free state...

Most will recognize those words as a part of the United States Constitution's Second Amendment. Its full wording as ratified by the States and
approved by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

What exactly did the Framers mean by a 'free state' and how was it expected to remain 'free'?

Prevailing thought at the time among the citizens was a fear of a tyrannical government, dictatorial in nature and temper, who's mores and whims could
be asserted upon the combined citizenry unjustly. This pervading sentiment was a result of the preceding decades leading to the Revolution and the
actions of the British Parliament and Monarchy. This disposition amongst the Framers was nearly universal and was not the sole haunt of
anti-Federalists as Noah Webster, a supporter of a Federalist style government, so succinctly decreed:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that
can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

The anti-Federalist, George Mason, who is referred to as the 'Father of the Bill of Rights', eloquently outlined why, at the inception of the country,
they should be wary of an unarmed populace:

...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them...by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

He also clearly detailed who constituted the Militia:

They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to
individually bear arms to serve therein.

Thomas Jefferson's contemporary, the fiery Patrick Henry also understood the threat to Liberty came from a tyrannical government, and that it could
only be repelled by an armed citizenry, when he famously said:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright
force.

For these reasons, James Monroe, author of the Constitution, incorporated them into the document which we still utilize to define our rights as free
citizens. His stance was that the right to bear arms was among the most basic 'human rights'.

So who was to provide the security of a free state? Why, the people of course. An earlier draft of the Second Amendment read as follows:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

While the latter part was eventually removed due to debates on how Great Britain had try to subvert the militia with a 'religious scruples' argument
it is the definitive participle of the prefatory clause, 'composed of the body of the people', which was removed as it was felt to be redundant. The
Framers understood the militia was composed of the 'body of the people' who were justly and rightly charged with the security of the free state in
which they now resided. The people had the sole power to depose a tyrannical government and subsequently install a new one; one that adhered to and
respected the principles outlined in the Constitution.

The People, the armed People, are the only security to the free state.

edit on 21-7-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
When the words "well regulated" appear, who is supposed to be the regulator? Seems odd that is government is the bad actor, they would be assigned
as the regulator.

Congress and the respective States.

I mean who really cares? just buy moar gunzzzzz. You'll feel whole.

This really is not about 'buying more guns' but to explain the sentiment behind the inclusion of the right to bear arms as an enumerated right in
the Constitution. The Framers felt an unarmed populace was at the whim of their government and would eventually lose all of their rights.

When the words "well regulated" appear, who is supposed to be the regulator? Seems odd that is government is the bad actor, they would be assigned as
the regulator.

I mean who really cares? just buy moar gunzzzzz. You'll feel whole.

I am pretty sure that you have already been told what 'well-regulated' meant in the late 1700's.
see here: www.constitution.org

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something
being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight
of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do
so that the founders wrote it.

originally posted by: intrepid
That's what I've been waiting to see. "Fear". That's what the nation is built on and reacts to. Sorta gives on pause when thinking about the last
2 lines of the Star Spangled Banner doesn't it?

Should I have used 'premise'? My choice of wording is not relevant to what the Founders wrote and zeroing in on my use of the word fear is not
indicative of the national mood in my opinion. I do not 'fear' a tyrannical government, but I am very wary of one.

And no. Almost 250 years later? Give it up.

I think not. Vigilance against tyranny is not a stance that should be discarded.

originally posted by: intrepid
But vigilance against tyranny when it hasn't existed is wasted energy and to a point, paranoia.

I keep fire extinguishers strategically placed in my home. I honestly hope my house does not catch fire but am I paranoid for having them? My home has
not burned down but I am always prepared to combat a fire if need be.

originally posted by: intrepid
But vigilance against tyranny when it hasn't existed is wasted energy and to a point, paranoia.

I keep fire extinguishers strategically placed in my home. I honestly hope my house does not catch fire but am I paranoid for having them? My home has
not burned down but I am always prepared to combat a fire if need be.

Is your house 250 years old? Has it given any indication that it may wants to make an active, conscious assault on you? If you can't see the
difference there I'll be shocked.

originally posted by: intrepid
The reasonable, considering that any fire would be a matter of physics, not politics. But after 250 years and no tyranny, I think it's getting old.
Well, the southern states may have a case.

I am not really following your argument that just because something has not happened does not mean it will not happen.

Obviously there are occurrences which can be more likely to occur and others with a smaller likelihood. Imploding governments, while not a frequent
occurrence, do have an established history of occurring.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.